Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it. — Tzeentch

The point is that nobody seems to have any idea what is happening, including apparently the president himself. How can there be some sort of secret elite plan going on?

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.

As I've outlined before in this thread, due to the way US politics works I am inclined to lean towards the latter. Presidents simply don't have that much power, as the Obama and Trump 1 administrations attest to. I might change my mind if I see the US becoming fundamentally unsecure on a geopolitical level, but for now the US is safe and secure on its island. — Tzeentch

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise.

To discount the idea completely is simply short-sighted. — Tzeentch

The reason why people are discounting it is because they aren't short sighted. In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China.

No, he said he wanted to. He did not say he was going to. — frank

And what's gonna stop him?

I think he realized he fucked up, and that his advisor is even more stupid than he is. Maybe someone told him that the source of reasoning for why to install the tariffs comes from a crackpot who invented an expert for his book to look factual. That all of this is based on that non-existing person. And now that he knows this, he tries to back out in a way that doesn't paint him as a damn moron (more than usual). — Christoffer

If you go back to his videos from the 80s you'll find he was always a big believer in tariffs. I think he genuinely thinks they can be used to replace income taxes like in the 19th century, so we'll probably continue to see him trying to touch the stove like he did the last 2 times.

Something to consider: Economists have pointed out that it isnt tariffs per se that are so damaging to markets and businesses. Tariffs have not historically led to recessions all by themselves, even Smoot-Hauley. It’s the uncertainty associated with an on-again off again policy-making style dictated by the whims of one man. How can businesses plan if they don’t know whether this latest announcement is a just a pause, or an elimination of reciprocal tariffs? How can markets and corporations trust that , whichever way Trump goes, he’ll stick to that plan? Why should they when he has already reversed himself multiple times? Such unpredictability is disastrous for the economy. — Joshs

Indeed that's the biggest risk right now and will continue to be a big drag on the economy as long as Trump continues to float the idea. Personally I wouldn't want to be investing in this market right now, despite all the excitement going on with the pause (and the 100% tariff on Chinese goods that everyone is just ignoring right now).

They thought he wouldn't do that. That being said he needs to pay for those tax cuts somehow. The assumption was that he'll inflate the national debt again and that probably will still happen in part because it'll cost trillions to fund.

All true. The fact remains that the two American political parties have switched roles. The Democrats are now the party of the status quo. Republicans have become the party of change. This isn't Trump's doing exclusively. It's been coming for a while. — frank

Agreed.

What I'm saying is that however you assess Trump and his allies, you have to admit that they've shaken up the whole political domain. They have won in that regard. We aren't going back to the way things were. The Democratic party showed up as hollow and nothing more than tools of Wall St. No one has had the courage to question the almighty status of the financial sector in the name of the well-being of Main St. It's a lesson in the nature of human affairs that the person who finally did it is an amoral asshole. — frank

The amoral asshole was preferred by Wall St primarily because such a person wouldn't go after their interests. The establishment is more terrified of the far left than the far right and in a time where people yearn for change the far right ends up ascending. It's happened before in early 20th century Germany where the fear of communism partially led to the rise of Hitler.

Things aren't gonna go back because people don't want things to go back. It'll be up to the Democrats whether they accept that lesson or try to run another "restore the soul of America" type candidate.

I don't think Trump is an ideologue of any kind, but he has gathered people to him who actually do have a new political outlook involving authoritarianism of a kind the US has never had. There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance. — frank

He's an ideologue when it comes to trade. He's been singing about his love for tariffs for as long as Bernie has been going on about universal healthcare which is why none of what's happened thus far should come as a surprise to people. His belief that trade is a zero-sum game where the side who makes more cash is the "winner" is perhaps an idea from his childhood that he never admitted was wrong because according to him he's never wrong about anything.

Apart from that, the MAGA movement is mostly a vehicle for grifters like Musk, RFK Jr, and the Heritage Foundation to come in and enact their own personal agendas.

Decreased government spending and tax cuts will certainly offset the cost of tariffs to the American public. — NOS4A2

"Hey tariffs will make things cost more but at least there's less government spending on social security" isn't the win you think it is.

Oh, you're talking about his tax cuts from 2018, due to be extended. And now we're talking about benefits to the top 20%. Do you think the tax policies he campaigned on in this term on might benefit the lower 80%? — NOS4A2

Not enough to offset the tax from his tariffs and the gutting of government programs from DOGE. But hey no taxes on tips... if we're lucky.

Trump will probably be followed by Vance, unless a Democratic superstar emerges. — frank

I see no world where Vance becomes president because either Trump succeeds in dismantling US democracy in which case he'll just stay in until he dies, or the democratic process continues as usual in which case given what we've been seeing from this administration means Vance gets annihilated electorally. The Democrats can run a corpse and they will win. They did the last time and hopefully they won't the next time.

It takes minutes to impose tariffs, but 5 to 10 years to build a factory. Also why would a manufacturer build that factory when in 4 years Trump will be gone and the tariffs may well be reversed. — Punshhh

It's also the same reason why Trump's attempts to woo Russia away from China are doomed to fail, which is that nobody expects his policies to actually remain in 4 years.

A lot of them don’t even know what that is, it’s been discredited for so long. But they are likely to learn now the hard way, with a deep recession and steep bear market. — Joshs

And they deserve everything that comes from that if they keep wanting to flirt with this moron. Despite the efforts of many to tell them about his tariff plans their reasoning never went beyond "well inflation wasn't a problem when he was president last time so I guess he'll fix it this time".

We simply can't be outsourcing all of our metals production overseas because it's just too big of a national security risk. There must be some amount of domestic production. — BitconnectCarlos

An even bigger risk is suddenly making enemies of the allies you depend upon without a plan.

The only people that seem to be benefitting are EU weapons and plant manufacturers. And Russia. — fdrake

Don't forget China, which probably stands to benefit the most from all of this.

And if people think, "Well, it’s just Ukraine," then I think we need to remember that in December 2021, Russia issued an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe. — Benkei

That is the only risk I see from all of this. I don't think Russia would invade NATO countries (but who knows given what Trump has done to it) but I do see a big risk of Putin going after the smaller former Soviet states, if only to save face.

That being said, the war ending is a good thing since this was realistically the only way it could've ended.

I don't think that what Trump is doing is a good idea, but I think it must be admitted that he is doing just what he said he would. — Janus

Except for the part where he said he'd immediately bring down prices.

He's dismantling every policy and institution he disagrees with with reckless abandon, precisely as his supporters want him to do. — Hanover

Last I checked, his supporters wanted him to address high prices and immigration while downplaying the possibility he'd do the rest.

Because I've seen this play from you before and I know you're not speculating in good faith. Trump is literally doing a worse version of what Biden did but you paint one as a fool and the other as a secret genius.

Given that Israel has stomached becoming a rogue state for over a year then I don't see how Trump can use international criticism as a threat, especially since he seems to be the one taking ownership of the whole situation. All the international criticism isn't directed at Israel, but at the US. Netanyahu knows this which is why he can't help but smile and stay silent as Trump gives his speech about Gazans being displaced.

I'd say the whole idea that Trump pressured Netanyahu to get a cease-fire is put into question now. Since you love speculating on negotiating tactics then this could've all been one big trade off for Netanyahu to pretend to end the war and give an optical win in exchange for Trump taking Gaza off of Israel's hands. Who knows just one theory for how things played out.

In any case if you're gonna act like this is some 4D chess move by Trump then at least come up with something better.

Curious were you saying this about Biden's Gaza policy?

The first question is: who is going to drive out Hamas? Israel tried and failed. Are the Americans going to do it for them? If you put aside for a moment how completely absurd that would be, it's not even clear whether the Americans would succeed. — Tzeentch

If people have been asking questions like this, we wouldn't be in this mess.

The idea that Trump would send American troops to carry out 'the final solution' in Gaza sounds far-fetched to me. It would be a global diplomatic disaster. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to first push Netanyahu to a cease-fire. — Tzeentch

He was on the brink of starting a global trade war a day earlier before chickening out so I don't think anything is far-fetched.

Pushing for a ceasefire makes sense if you want to use the land as real estate property which is something that Trump's son in law has suggested in the past. Of course we could also not rule out that he doesn't know what he's doing either.

To put it in another way: Trump just made it plain for all to see that this is not about Hamas, but about the forced deportation of 2,000,000 Palestinians and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. — Tzeentch

Not that I think it will do much since his election has shown that nothing really matters anymore, but at least people can stop pretending.

Anyways to borrow your phrasing it will be big if it sticks.

Trump's Mideast Envoy Forced Netanyahu to Accept a Gaza Plan He Repeatedly Rejected

Too early to celebrate, but the implications of this will be major if it sticks. — Tzeentch

And... as it turns out, it was too early to celebrate.

Not surprisingly you're splitting hairs again.

I never gave my definition of fascism, nor did I call the EU fascist, but this is just a dumb argument to make. — Tzeentch

You literally called them fascist in your other post:

A while back I pointed out how, if you want a real example of looming fascism, one should look no further than our own backyard, Europe.

Today it seems European Union is becoming more and more authoritarian, now overtly threatening to sink the Hungarian economy if it refuses to back aid to Ukraine.

Brussels threatens to hit Hungary's economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid (Financial Times)

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience.

All I'm asking is for you to be consistent.

This situation cannot be compared to the US, and obviously between the two if any are closer to fascism it is the EU by a mile and a half. — Tzeentch

As far as I can tell there's not much of a distinction between what you pointed out and what's going on in the US. You know apart from the fact that one is on the nefarious left and the other is on the pure right :roll: .

This has been common practice in the US for decades. The only difference now is that the billionaires are not on the team you like, so suddenly it's fascism. :yawn: — Tzeentch

Hey I'm only going off your definition of fascism here. If you felt the need to call the EU "fascists" earlier then you should do the same for Trump as well. Either both are fascists or none are. The only reason I can see for you not doing either is because, as you suggest, one is on "your team" and the other isn't.

An aggressive foreign policy is nothing new for the US. It's not pretty, obviously, but it's not fascism in the way that it looms over the EU under the unelected, nepo baby Queen Ursula. — Tzeentch

Nobody elected Elon Musk either but Trump is using the weight of the US empire to pressure the UK to not taxing tech billionaires like him.

I don't see how the two are remotely comparable. — Tzeentch

Of course. One is a more left leaning group going after a right leaning country while the other is a right leaning country going after a left leaning country. One is bad and the other one isn't.

I'm guessing threatening to invade the Panama Canal if they don't do what you want also doesn't amount to what you call "fascism" either. Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Panama, and the US's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience. Not remotely comparable to the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience when it comes to the EU's "authoritarianism".

If you want to believe economic rivalry between two independent nations equals fascism then you've thrown all sense of reason and proportion out of the window. — Tzeentch

If it was economic rivalry then the US would be concerned about it's own tax laws instead of the ones other countries make, specifically on Trump's new oligarch buddies.

rump's first presidency was nothing special, no fascism, no World War 3, no end of days, etc. and I see no reason to believe his second will be any different. — Tzeentch

I mean by your own metrics, it seems like he's already being a fascist if these past few weeks mean anything:

Today it seems European Union is becoming more and more authoritarian, now overtly threatening to sink the Hungarian economy if it refuses to back aid to Ukraine.

Brussels threatens to hit Hungary's economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid (Financial Times)

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience. — Tzeentch

Trump threatens retaliation against UK over tax on tech giants

Of course, I suspect they don't mean anything because at the end of the day nothing means anything except left vs. right.

I never said he would or that I expect any of his plans to do that (quite the opposite as you've pointed out). But I'm saying that people genuinely expect prices to go down now.

Well, let's all hope that Trump will actually get prices to go down because that's apparently the trade that alot of American voters have made for this.

I mean we should never underestimate Bibi's ability to undermine any potential for peace, but it will be a total failure of the Biden policy if it goes through and sticks. Trump is only pushing for a ceasefire now because he can understand a political headache when he sees one. Biden though was incapable of seeing the obvious and was either too senile or feeble exert any pressure which could've gotten this result a year ago.

Trump is just hot air of populism, basically anti-elitism, that the present elites are evil and screwing the ordinary people and he will solve everything. — ssu

He has the appearance of a populist because calls out the elites when it comes to things like censorship (particularly censorship of him) or when they go after his crimes, but when it comes to his economic grievances he's gonna blame the immigrants, the government, and other countries. They are stealing your jobs, they are bringing in crime and drugs, and they're taking your money. Inflation is caused by too much wasteful government spending and it's spending on other countries that don't deserve it or "woke" programs that help people who aren't you.

There is a concentrated effort against trade unions and the labor movement, and this will surely continue during the Trump years. Just look at the billionaires that are the backers of Trump. — ssu

This is the problem with Trump's theory of economic change which is that it completely ignores the role of big business in getting us where we are. It's not just the dirty immigrants who make stuff cheaper. And as far as I can tell these businesses are gonna be given way more influence in this upcoming administration than any previous administration I've seen, even under Trump's last government. The billionaires who benefitted the most from this neoliberal era are not gonna save us from neoliberalism.

If Trump did succeed in returning the US to a pre-1990s trade position, it would be the first step in the recreation of American labor unions. It would mean demands for a better social safety net would have power behind them. — frank

The irony is that empowering labor unions is what you wouldn't want if you want to encourage US onshoring. Businesses don't build in the US because the labor and safety standards are poor in countries like China.

That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. He hasn't been very pro-labor in his first term and as much as he may try to give some crumbs to the labor workers he's been trying to court he's certainly gonna be worse than the Democrats on the matter especially as he surrounds himself with anti-union business leaders like Elon Musk. There will probably be a port strike coming in January, so we'll see how he handles it.

I don't like Trump, mainly because I don't want to hear his mouth, but on this issue, he's actually lining up with exactly what he said he wanted to do back in 2016: shore up the position of American labor. — frank

He didn't really do that during his first term. In fact, Biden accomplished that. Also, the renegotiated NAFTA he did wasn't even that different from NAFTA.

I guess it depends on what commodity we're talking about. I think the main thing we get from Mexico is agricultural products. What kind of supply chain were you thinking of? — frank

I mean it's not just Mexico and it's not just agricultural products. The discussions I've seen haven't gone into specifics about the different industries, but they have generally given that time frame for the US to rebuild it's manufacturing infrastructure to pre-NAFTA levels. Two years is way too short a period to expect everything to be fixed especially given how offshoring happened over several decades.

I mean, inflation is coming down. The Fed is set to decrease rates again next year. When I say I think the tariffs will be permanent, I mean that it won't be possible to form a coalition to get rid of them again. As for Europe, I don't think it's even on the American radar at this point. I think we'll be parting ways in terms of fundamentals. — frank

A future president can remove tariffs if they want as much as Trump can impose them. You don't need congressional approval to get this done. You just need a president who disagrees with Trump's approach on the issue.

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them. — frank

They'll still be hurt regardless. Whatever will be made in the US will be more expensive and retailers will have to bear that cost or make prices higher. So even in the case where tariffs will bring back US jobs the inflationary effects will be permanent.

Now of course it's debatable whether that is good or not, but that wasn't the concern for most voters this year. It was inflation and a belief that Trump will bring prices down which is the irony here.

I'd say more like two years, but I believe the tariffs will be permanent. — frank

The timeframe that's been thrown around is a decade. You can't just simply rebuild entire supply chains in a couple of years, one with the connections and an experienced workforce, especially if a good chunk of that workforce is gonna be deported.

But if you think Trump should impose these massive tariffs permanently and that the economy and prices would somehow work itself out before the midterms or the next presidential election, that's fine by me. I welcome it too, for different reasons.

A lot of those businesses rely on imports and they're the ones who have to pay for the tariffs.

As for manufacturing, it's not clear 25% tariffs will be enough to encourage investment in US production but assuming it is, it'll take at least a decade before those supply chains are built out and some companies may very well choose to wait out the Trump administration instead or at best move production to other countries like Vietnam which have equally cheap labor compared to China.

What the EU should really do is to embrace for the tariffs that Trump will put on Europe. Assume a trade war that will hurt both sides will happen. — ssu

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad.

The only thing positive here is that Trump is simply so inept, that in the end he will just have tantrums in the White House on how his loyal team hasn't been able to do anything and thus has betrayed him. Because if this man couldn't build a fucking wall, how can we assume that he can simply kick out every thirty third person living in the US? — ssu

Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't.